User talk:3ghef

Knight's tours[edit]

Okay, I have removed the recent edits that have added nearly 25KB of irrelevant source code (and console output!). WP is not a repository of code; one implementation of the knight's tour in C is more than enough. Dmitry Brant (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

k...i'll include comments bout the adds to "Variations" w the hope it helps others understand it and prevents any fut unnec editing... i'm a cryptic here, but pls bear w me... 1. "irrelevant source code (and console output!). WP is not a repository of code" ... um actually, the entire Knight's Tour prob and sol is nec & admittedly algorithmic in nature...the obv tool to bring to bear in sols is the computer...unless u want to support args that we revert to an 18th cent scrivners treatment.

2. all probs and sols up to "Variations" a) involve only C and Java code (not a more modern C# implementation), b) imply no hint of a recursive sol in the det of move seqs, which is often argued as the more elegant and, when properly implemented as here, the most efficient form of sol and c) doesn't deal w the generic prob of a Knight's Tour...specifically doesn't mod or chg the move env or board and doesn't add any specific conditions on the move env or board vis-a-vis standard acceptable Knight Moves

my adds to "Variations" of the Knight's Tour address 1. and 2. and include an added bonus of a hash code treatment in sol which turn out to be much quicker than a "game board" or quasi "mapped" approach of sol...i'v provided the code...u can test for urselves.

all adds to "Variations" r based entirely on my own work and thus properly refed as such...3GHef. 3ghef (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you put in a lot of effort into your recent edits of the knight's tour article, and that's admirable, but I have reverted them because they are not encyclopedic, and do not contribute usefully to the article. Wikipedia is not a repository of source code or personal musings. Neither is it a repository for original research. You're more than welcome to post your source code on your own web page, but unless the code appears in a verifiable third-party publication, it does not belong in the article. (See WP:NOT and WP:OR).

If you would like to contribute to the article, please make sure your contributions are referenced (WP:REF). If you feel that I reverted your edits unjustly, let's discuss it on the article's talk page. Don't just undo my revert. Dmitry Brant (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding your source code to the knight's tour article. It will continue to be reverted until you join us on the talk page and demonstrate why your edits are worthy of inclusion. Dmitry Brant (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -->

Please read Wikipedia policies, especially WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:NOTE, WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Bubba73 (talk), 16:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --> Bubba73 (talk), 20:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 01:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Disruptive editing. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Repeatedly inserting original research at Knight's tour, after a final warning. Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]